I was shooting a HS baseball game the other day, and had gotten all the standard batter, pitcher and infielder shots, so I went behind the backstop and set up the shot below. After submitting my images to my client, I noticed this was one of 4 out of 76 submitted shots that was culled.
I kinda liked the shot. Am I seeing something worth saving that's not there? The team I was shooting is the pitcher's club. I would have preferred to have the batter's entire body, but all I had with me was my 400.
Yeah I like it too, very unique, although the reflections off the bat are a bit distracting... your eyes are drawn to that huge white thing in the middle... otherwise its nice with the back lighting and clean background
Also a little odd to see a pitcher's hat not pulled down further, really gives you a clean shot of his face. How often do you see hair and eyebrows under the cap?
Thanks. Yeah, ALL my shots had our typical March brown grass. I felt like colorizing it, or something. The next day (yesterday), parts of the Chicago area had close to a foot of snow.
I normally don't worry when clients purge any of my shots (man, if I started this it might never end), but this one was the one shot that stood out amongst the dozens I submitted, and I just found it odd that they would have chosen this one to be one of the few they didn't post.
I noticed this shot when you posted it in Dan's thread and I thought it was a cool shot. You've got the whole corner-to-corner diagonal thing going with the bat and the pitcher's body, and I thought it interesting that the chain-link only shows up in what appear to be reflections. Any way you look at it, it's a good shot of the pitcher, so who knows what they saw? (Maybe it's the fact that it stood out!)
Maybe it's a little more simple and the expression on the face that turned them off? It's not the most flattering of images expression wise even though it's a good capture overall
Russ - Thanks. I hadn't even noticed the fence reflections in the specular highlights.
Rob - I thought maybe the expression was objectionable, but heck, how many times does a player's expression look kinda goofy (especially women/girls) when they are at peak exertion? And we don't purge those, do we?
Rocketball wrote:
Many of the expressions capture actually ruin the shot. Most are just funny though.
Scott - we're getting a bit OT here, but it's my thread so I guess it's OK. Are you saying the face of the athlete needs to be attractive in order to not ruin the image?
I probably have hundreds (if not thousands) of what I consider very solid action images where the subject's face is contorted or otherwise "doin' an ugly" due to exertion.
I like the shot. I'm guessing the client didn't because it's a bit abstract if that's the right word. They were looking for the clean shot like your other pitcher shot. Probably one of those hate it or love it sort of things.
As for faces, if I catch my daughter pitching with a funny face (which is most of the time), then she doesn't like the shot. Dad likes the shots, gives them character.
Dennis,
I really like the shot....but what we like as "Photographers" is often quite different from the rest of the world!
I submmited a batch of images to Photoshelter for some stock photos....and they rejected my Favorite image of the batch Couldn't figure that one out?
My last bicycle race that I shot - I took a lot of "Test" photos - Strobist type Sportraites - https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/626693
Just to try something new - still needed a lot of work....ended up selling quite a few of these and in larger size prints than usual....so......I'll be adding this style routinely when I shoot and want to try it out with some field sports teams..
I really like the shot and am surprised they wouldn't want it just based on the fact that it is quite a bit different from what you would normally see.
Well I like it too. The specular highlight and the batter/bat being so abstract...they may have felt it distracts. It does little...my eye does not know what to focus on. Perhaps they felt like if the message was conveyed clearly in an instant, they did not want it. Just a thought anyway.
But as a photographer, I like it because it is unique and still has the context of the action.
dmwierz wrote:
Scott - we're getting a bit OT here, but it's my thread so I guess it's OK. Are you saying the face of the athlete needs to be attractive in order to not ruin the image?
I probably have hundreds (if not thousands) of what I consider very solid action images where the subject's face is contorted or otherwise "doin' an ugly" due to exertion.
Well, not exactly.... I'm not saying it has to be "attactive", but when you shoot a tongue biter, or just have a face that is very contorted, IMO it does affect the over all quality of the shot. The parent of the player will probably love it, but for whatever reason, this is something that just buggs me.
If you had two identical shots of a player, one "doin' an ugly", and one showing the player in a more flattering way, I would bet most people would not choose the "doin' an ugly" as the best shot.
Showing exertion, emotion, and/or passion in the shot is important, but some times it just goes to an extreme.
Thanks for the comments. The tangent we've gone on is interesting. It reminds me of all the images I have of Maria Sharapova - an athlete who is almost universally viewed as a very attractive woman.
I have hundreds of shots of Sharapova, and of these, a couple dozen are what would normally be considered "attractive" or flattering. Many are like this:
xjohnx wrote:
FWIW, the shot of Scheyer from Duke is pretty much status quo for him. I'm pretty sure he has rabies.
xjohn - Yep, I've seen him do this "face" on quite a few shots, though I'm not sure it's because he's hydrophobic, as you imply
I remember when he played HS ball here in the Chicago area. He was on the state champs in 2005 at Glenbard North, and even then, he had the same expression.
To answer your question of which ones are the better action shots..... From a journalisic perspective, I guess it depends on what story you are trying to tell.
I'm not paying for your shots but in my view there is absolutely no question that the 3rd Sharapova shot has not only a more pleasing expression but is the better tennis shot.
By a long shot. The first two are not keepers. And the 4th is a dime a dozen. The 3rd is a very strong shot any way you look at it.
TT1000 wrote:
I'm not paying for your shots but in my view there is absolutely no question that the 3rd Sharapova shot has not only a more pleasing expression but is the better tennis shot.
By a long shot. The first two are not keepers. And the 4th is a dime a dozen. The 3rd is a very strong shot any way you look at it.
TT - I mostly agree with your evaluation. The awkward shots of Sharapova weren't submitted. I only kept them in my archives. Thanks for your kinds words on the 3rd shot - it's one of the favorite tennis shots I've taken, too.
As for the 4th shot, it's actually made me a decent sum of money - more than a "dime a dozen".
Danny, weather permitting, I'm scheduled to shoot almost every night this week. I'll email you with my schedule.
Most are just funny though.
Couldn't figure that one out?
